Friday, September 9, 2011

I was reading Colonel’s blog (as I usually do), and found the Bugliosi/HS conversation on his second thread “Shrugs” particularly interesting. It’s very, very good stuff! Heck… those topics are essentially the “cruxt” of blogging this subject.

Anywho… I was going to post a couple boring documents today… and then decided… it would be more fun… to participate in the Bugliosi/HS topic. But… here’s the twist: Rather than write-up an entire thread… I’m uploading my “notes” only… in “outline form”. You folks fill-in the blanks! Fill-in the blanks, or tear it apart… your choice. As always, I could be completely full of shit… you decide!

My thoughts on the importance of Bugliosi today… in regards to solving the case/motive question:

1) Essentially, Manson convicted himself.

2) Bugliosi’s only, REAL, “claim to fame“ was successfully predicting how Manson would “play his cards”. Bugliosi knew… if he gave Manson enough rope… Manson would hang himself.

3) Bugliosi had little (if any) concrete evidence against Manson… so he designed a plan, which would allow Manson to convict himself… with his own personality… and demons.

Think of the movie “A few Good Men”. Tom Cruise had little concrete evidence on Nicholson. BUT… Cruise knew Nicholson was a big lion, who wanted to “roar”… and he painted him into that corner… and got a confession. OK… a really cheesy analogy,…and not 100% “analogous” (LOL)… but, it’s a similar concept. The actions of Manson and his “family”... were essentially a confession in action form… a confession that Manson was the leader. Bugliosi predicted these idiots were going to “act-out” this dramatic real-life play. Through his research, Bugliosi had already observed all the necessary elements in action, to make that prediction!Bottom Line:Bugliosi KNEW… Manson and company… were…. (at that time) in-capable of practicing ‘self-control”… as a means of winning the case for Manson. These folks were FAR beyond switching gears. “The family” was NOT going to portray Manson as a mere follower! That wasn’t going to happen… and Bugliosi knew it. That’s how Bugliosi won the case.

4) The jury did NOT convict Manson because they were sold on the Helter Skelter story. The jury convicted Manson, because they were convinced Manson was in-charge, and thusly a conspirator to the murders. Manson himself (and ‘the family“ collectively)… convinced the jury of those two facts… NOT Bugliosi. The HS story (beyond Bugliosi‘s book) was secondary.

5) Bobby (blogger Bobby) made a great point. OJ Simpson was a wife-beater, and a murderer… but there’s absolutely no denying… he was a great football player. You have to separate personal life, from professional assessment. Bill Clinton was a great president. The economy was fabulous… jobs and overtime were everywhere. Internationally, we were on good terms with the world. His blowjobs from Monica… were between him and his wife… he and God. But professionally… the man did a great job. The presidency, is a job. A blowjob? LOLIf you hire a carpenter to build you a house…. and he’s does a spectacular… highly-skilled job,…at a fair price… do you care who he’s banging or stalking on his own time? Does it make him a bad carpenter?

7) Bugliosi was the prosecutor… he prosecuted. Folks need to get over that simple fact. If you really want to bash an incompetent man (who completely screwed Manson)… take a good look at Kanarek. Kanarek was Manson’s defense attorney for cripes sakes… and he NEVER put on a defense!!! Now THAT guy committed a crime. Sure, Bugliosi threw Kanarek a few compliments out of “professional courtesy” in the past… i.e., “Kanarek scored some points”, etc. But C’mon… Kanarek sucked!8) Starship said… “I have bigger fish to fry”… and that says it all. At the end of the day, bashing Bugliosi is a fruitless endeavor. It will never produce a real motive, or solve the case. As Leary said: Bugliosi is not a hero or a villain… he did a job.

9) Why did Manson screw himself??I’ve always believed it was pride. Manson wasn’t going to eat a big piece of humble pie, and play by “the man’s” rules. He wasn’t going to sit there like a deaf/mute… a nobody… a follower. If Manson couldn’t win on his terms, he didn’t want to play.MattP has also suggested: Manson was convinced… he couldn’t be convicted of murder, without actually killing. Truth be told… it was likely heavy elements of both.

136 comments:

Manson did convict himself. Bugliosi knew enough about Manson, in talking to him and others around him, that Manson would easily accomplish that if he was allowed to. And that's exactly what happened.

Bugliosi used the Helter Skelter theory as a motive and he got a conviction. He could just as easily used the "Manson was having a bad hair day and got pissed off" motive, and if he had gotten a conviction with that motive, everyone on these boards would be saying that was bogus. So, bottom line is, people aren't mad about the Helter Skelter motive, they're mad that Charlie got convicted.

For some strange reason, there are several people who think that Charlie did nothing wrong. That he didn't order murder. That somehow, some drugged-addled, whacked out chicks and a farm boy one day woke up and decided to make mincemeat out of strangers. And why is that? It depends on who you're talking to.

1) Copy cat murders. Well, this is silly, because if that was the case, why are they not similar? There was no rope or cut phone lines at Gary's or LaBianca's. No gun used at LaBianca's.

Why not make sure they are all identical if they're supposed to be the same? Why not make sure that's quite evident?

2) Drug burn. Who burned who? It depends on who you're talking to. Tex burned Sebring...Sebring burned Tex...Tex burned Frykowski...Frykowski burned Tex...Linda was f*cking everybody...Tex was in charge...Linda was in charge...Sadie was in charge..

Nobody can quite come up with a good enough story.

3) Organized crime. Leno had gambling debts. So what? You don't get money from dead people. Why kill him? And why hire some rag-tag hippies to chop & dice when there are plenty of "hit men" to just shoot to kill.

The only difference between Charles Manson and Casey Anthony is that in the Manson trial, the DA was spot on and did his job, looking not only at the all of the facts of this case, but knowing that this particular perp would blow his own cover with his constant need for attention. Also, the jury was stalwart and brave, convicting the defendants even in the face of death threats.

In the Casey Anthony trial, the DA was overconfident and didn't do his job. He was sure he had a conviction and didn't put enough effort into presenting his case. Also, the jury was a bunch of pansies who were tired of being there and just wanted to get the hell outta Dodge to get back to sipping martinis by the pool.

Both are guilty. Only one is serving time.

Bugliosi did a damn good job. He was an excellent prosecutor. He spent thousands of hours making his case, and knew the law backward & forward. He is to be commended. And it doesn't matter what he did before or after this case. That fact remains.

And, as pointed out, if there is any blame to be had, it should lie at Kanarek's feet.

This guy spent 99% of his time just interrupting with constant objections. Of course, in Kanarek's defense, his client ruined everything by his own actions, and Kanarek was unable to control his antics. So, like I said before, even if Charlie's attorney was F. Lee Bailey, he would most likely have been convicted, only due to his outrageous and idiotic behavior during the trial.

Manson is someone who has to have attention. He still craves it even now. And we all know, when someone craves attention, it doesn't have to be good attention..bad attention will do just fine. And that's what he got. Bad attention. And Manson has no one to blame for that but HIMSELF!!

I have been thinking about posting this on a few blogs- but I think I will do it here...

I like the analogy by the way... very clever, and I totally see the point....

I posted an idea on Cols site about everyone posting there ideas, and not posting about each other- since then I have watched and read one attack after another - and shots get fired back and forth between rooms... who knows what and who is stupid, and who tolerates what...

It seems so many people think they know so much more than others on some of the other sites- it is amazing none of them become rich writing the "real story" which none of the rest of us can seem to figure out...

as well- try as I may to keep people over at Cols focused on subject and not each other-it just doesn't seem that some people come here for anything other than drama and conflict...

My point is simply this on this subject :

Who cares and what does it really matter what Bugs did before that case, and after that case- as long as he didn't break any laws prosecuting that case...

there are 1,000's of Assistant DA's around this country who hold similar positions to the one he held then....

some are better guys, and some are worse. some are dads who play with there kids on the weekends, and some are addicts who feed the jones on weekends, and some are gamblers who piss away the bill money on weekends..

all types of folks from all walks of life- just like you would find in any other group of people with similar careers...

another thing they have in common is that when a chance to shed the 40K a year thankless job comes along- 100% of them would jump at it...

so Bugs- regardless of his character- did what anyone else in his shoes would do- he took an opportunity to make a name for himself, and if a better life is there as well- I guess one of us would have turned from the microphones and the cameras and the money????

not me...

Bugs didn't kill anyone at Ceilo or Waverly..

Charlie didn't do anything to help himself at all...

He still wont...

Had he told Bugs back then it was over drugs, and had he played it cool, and not help perpetuate the myth dancing around on Geraldo and Joe Rose and the others even years later...

maybe he had a chance...

If he had been apologetic all these years, and had he done anything at all to help himself- He would have had the best chance of parole- he didnt kill anyone!!

but he didn't care than and he doesn't care now

Some people think that is Bug's fault, and the government and all those other things - which are no-doubt broken- but irrelevant to this case...

OJ- also bad example- he WANTED to stay free... he did everything he could to help himself!!

only Charlie acted like it was all a big game...

Charlie put himself where he is and Charlie kept himself there...

anyone who still thinks that Bugs made up Helter Skelter- just shouldn't talk about this with me at this point either,,,

I have heard three or four family members use the term- I have listened to paul Watkins explain the term, and saw pictures of it written on a door at the ranch...

BUGs may have " legendized" the term- but again he didn't invent it- and Charlie never refuted it when he could have...

but of course- as always-

this is just my opinion...

The gov is certainly corrupt, and the system is truly broken ,and some people definitely have advantages in our country others done...

but Charlie was no martyr...

he had no grand purpose...

he was a petty crook who fell in with some pathetic losers, and was able to manipulate them to get some favors...

i can't blame vb for doing what he did but at the same time i don't buy helter skelter as the true motive. i'm not saying i know what the motive was but i am saying i don't believe that someone was trying to start a race war with these murders. what i said about manson not believing he'd be convicted had to do with manson not thinking he'd be convicted for conspiracy because helter skelter was such a flimsy theory that no jury would ever go for it. imo opinion he thought the others would be convicted for the murders and the jury would have to let him off because they would'nt believe the hs theory so he'd walk free at least on the tate murders. manson underestimated bugliosis ability to sell the jury a bill of goods and overestimated the jurys ability to use common sense. the killers themselves may have thought that they were trying to start a race war but at the end of the day they were probably puppets being used for another purpose that they werent even aware of. that makes more sense to me than thinking you'll start a race war by killing a movie star and her friends,a grocer and his wife then running off to the desert to hide.

>>>Matt said: the killers themselves may have thought that they were trying to start a race war but at the end of the day they were probably puppets being used for another purpose that they werent even aware of.>>>

That's exactly right Matt. The killers were convinced by Charlie that there was going to be a war, and they needed to jump start it. If it didn't make any sense to them, they were too far gone to know that.

I think we all pretty much agree that Helter Skelter was NOT the motive.

I doubt if the Jury bought the Helter Skelter stuff either, but I'm sure they were absolutely convinced that these people didn't do ANYTHING unless Charlie ordered it. They could see that with their own eyes, day after day after day.

So to think that these killers acted on their own was ludicrous. Charlie convicted himself because he couldn't sit still and NOT be the leader.

Tex Watson sold wigs in the same area as Rosemary LaBianca. Rosemary was a partner in a dress shop, the "Boutique Carriage." Ackording to Resarcher Bill Nelson Rosemary had purchased wigs together with drugs. Tex Watson also dealt with drugs and Jay Sebring also sold wigs in his own business. Linda Kasabian the principal witness for Vincent Bug had without any doubt been to Cielo Drive after Roman and Sharon moved in. She must have met at least one of the murder victims there.Is it just all coincidence?

I think St. understood your analogy. You were saying that even if OJ was a murderer, you can't say he wasn't a great football player. The two things are very different. You were trying to explain that someone can be very good at something, but yet fail in another arena.

I think that St. was just comparing OJ to Charlie as to demeanor at his trial.

>>>V717 said: Tex Watson sold wigs in the same area as Rosemary LaBianca. Rosemary was a partner in a dress shop, the "Boutique Carriage." Ackording to Resarcher Bill Nelson Rosemary had purchased wigs together with drugs.>>>

Bill Nelson is full of crap. As far as I've read or heard, Rosemary didn't sell wigs or drugs. Haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. There were NO drugs found at the LaBianca's at the murder scene.

>>>Tex Watson also dealt with drugs and Jay Sebring also sold wigs in his own business.>>>

I believe that Jay fitted toupees for his men clients. Men don't wear wigs. Tex sold women's wigs.

>>>Linda Kasabian the principal witness for Vincent Bug had without any doubt been to Cielo Drive after Roman and Sharon moved in. She must have met at least one of the murder victims there.>>>

What proof do you have that Linda was at Cielo Drive after Sharon & Roman moved in? There is none other than heresay.

Yes, why did he chose Susan and Linda to go on these missions? That doesn't make sense.I agree Katie! Perhaps it was because it wasn´t Charlies idea. Perhaps it was because Susan, Linda, Patricia and Tex was on their own little mission. Straighten things up, you know. I think Lesley just tagged along the second night. Everybody agrees that Charlie is very intelligent.So why on earth should Charlie orchestrate this crazy scheme.I don´t think Charlie at that time had much control over things. There is no doubt about that he ranteded and raved about Helter Skelter but that looks to me resembeling a person that is beginning to loose his grip. That was also FBI-profiler John Douglas conclusion after he talked with Charlie in jail.

I want to make one point clear:I NEVER said Helter Skelter was the true motive.I'm not sure how/where that notion arose.Like everyone, I'm unsure of the true motive.

However... I'm personally convinced... Helter Skelter was, in fact, discussed at the ranch.Nothing more... nothing less.I don't believe "Helter Skelter" was completely fabricated out of thin air, by Bugliosi... as some have offered.There's a big difference between believing HS was NOT fabricated by Bugliosi... and believing it was the true motive.The two concepts are not even in the same ball park.

I'm pretty sure that was Saint's original point (regarding HS) as well... and that's why I agreed with him.Correct me Saint, if I'm wrong...

Unfortunately... after years of trying to connect those dots... I'm really starting to believe these folks were all simply NUTS... period... end of story.They were NUTS from several factors... including loads of drugs and their social setting.

After all these years... Pat, and others... have "come back to themselves".Being away from drugs, and the environment that made them "temporarily NUTS" (in the first place)... 40+ years ago... they've re-gained their marbles.They're quite intelligent and articulate now.It's a different story/situation altogether.

BUT... if you watch the UCLA footage... and the Hendrickson footage... any footage actually... from the trial period... and just after... it's evident to anyone with a brain... these folks were FRIED.They may have been "over-achievers"... "Homecoming Princesses"... "valedictorians" and "star athletes"... at one time... but... at the time of the murders... they were all CRACKERS!

I'm really starting to believe Harold True was correct.ALL these "Yahoos" (as he says) were definitely "carrying their brains in their lunchboxes" at that time.

I'm really starting to believe... we've ALL over-thought this whole thing for years.

Maybe we've all been "trying to ascribe reason to crazy people" for too long.

As for Manson... he had a heavy hand, in convicting himself.He's also gone very far (through the years)... to destroy any long-shot chance he may have had for release.That's why... I have a difficult time sympathizing with him.If he did everything in his power to avoid conviction from the start (as most people would)... I'd be a little more generous with my sympathy...

He seemed hellbent on being "somebody", and when he pissed away his chances at being a recording star, he had to come up with another way to make sure he'd always be remembered.

He HAD to know that sooner or later the murders were gonna come back and bite him in the ass. Too many of his "Family" knew about it to keep it a secret for long. And burning the loader was a completely assinine act for someone trying to lay low and hide out.

I think Manson knew all along that his time on the outside would be short. Did he care if he went back to prison? Probably not. He always claimed that prison was the only home he'd ever known. He just used his time outside to make a "name" for himself.

Involving himself in any capacity with a "crime family" comprised of little girls... "green" suburbanites... simply defies common reason.

You make a good point.

Heck... simply staying within that group... as they were committing crimes... he HAD to know it was going to "catch-up" to him eventually.

Jeez... Susan Atkins???

How could he NOT know, she spelled BIG trouble... from a crime standpoint??Heck... I wouldn't rob a candy store with Susan Atkins.An older man?... an EX-Con?If the police arrived at the ranch... he may as well have had a giant bulls-eye on his chest!

It just doesn't 'add-up".

Maybe you're right... maybe he DID have "death wish"... or a "prison wish", as it were. LOL

Manson obviously didn't care too much about losing the case during the trial... that's obvious.Maybe... as you're suggesting, he didn't give too much of a crap, even before that time.

Who knows...

The next logical question (though) becomes:

If he really wanted to go back to jail... why the elaborate rouge?Why not just go kill everyone himself... and wait in the living room, all bloody, until the cops come???

Melee said >>>> He wanted to get caught. There's no doubt about it. He was guilty. No one can say otherwise. Otherwise why are we here? <<<<<

I keep going back and forth. Sometimes i believe he wanted to be caught...the jails were his home etc etc and then on the other hand, it certainly seems for someone wanting to get caught, he always (other than Crowe) made sure his own hands weren't dirty, at least not filthy dirty.

I guess it never occurred to him that even if he 'never killed anyone' he could still be charged with conspiracy to murder and considered as guilty as the killers if convicted.

I think he figured there was nothing on him in the Tate murders, even making sure ~ if we believe he went to Cielo after the murders, that the killers hadn't left anything leading from the crime scene back to Spahn Ranch.

And Leno and Rosemary...always believed he tied up the Labiancas but he denies it...he told Dianne Sawyer 'i never tied up anyone' and I think Tex says Charlie pulled off the leather thongs and handed them to him with instructions to tie up Leno and Rosemary and he left, sent the girls in, took off.

He had Linda hide the wallet, dropped off the crew in Venice, took off. Showed up and took off at Hinman's. etc etc etc. So did he figure there was nothing really against him...maybe a little time back home in jail, and he'd be out again?

I don't think it ever occurred to him (at the time of the crimes)that it would end with a witness testifying against him, that the witness would appear credible, and that a jury would believe her...

I don´t agree with those who says that Charlie wanted to get caught.Tom G says that it did have a tremendous impact on American Culture, to which 40 some odd years later, we are still discussing.I couldn´t agree more. The Tate/LaBianca murders and the events at Altamont rock concert in december of 69 when Meredith Hunter was stabbed to death by HA in front of the scene when Rolling Stones played "Under my thumb."The myth says that they were playing "Symphaty for the Devil" but it was actually "Under my thumb" they were playing.LynyrdSkynyrdBand says: "They were NUTS from several factors... including loads of drugs and their social setting." I agree on that.There are also other elements in this story that are significant but more difficult to explain. There are many Dimensions in this case.

Marliese said:>>>>"it certainly seems for someone wanting to get caught, he always (other than Crowe) made sure his own hands weren't dirty, at least not filthy dirty".<<<<

Yes.That's what I was thinking.Like I said... "why then, the elaborate rouge(s)"?It seems (other than Crowe), he intentionally "distanced himself" from the actual crimes... "walked a line" (as he personally described it) in the Dianne Sawyer interview.(I believe it was the Sawyer footage).

It seems pretty obvious he wasn't overly fearful of jail, during the trial period.Prior to that... it seems to me, he was enjoying (and protecting) his freedom.

not sure what the true motive is yet- and mostly because the Labiancas dont fit in with anything I can come up..

But I am sure that BUGS didn't invent the phrase Helter Skelter regarding the family- that is my only firm point on the motive matter...

I guess a-lot of things are still possible...

I like what Tom said,some of what V saida lot of what Matt P said

I agree with most or all of these points...

Marliese raises a good point as well ( not getting his hands dirty)

and Bobbys last paragraph is right on as well...

V-17 basically lays out what I have been harping on for some time at one point...

how could so many of them have lived in such close proximity and been involved with the same things and same people and in the same business- and NOT have know each other?????

but I STILL can not prove they did...

FOOTBALL BABY :) Happy Sunday Go JETS!!!

Great Post- and this is becoming the place to talk reasonably about this subject....

when I fist joined my first blog it was Col and it was closed...

back then it seemed like Matt Pritash AC Marliese and myslef with an occasional visit from Brain Davis were the only ones posting- but it was always civil and we had great conversations about the case- there was never any insulting or screaming..

it was my favortite time blogging and it was what got me hooked...

This site is becoming like that , and it is a good thing in my opinion....

great Postsgreat ideasgreat conversations will make for a great blog!!

your arriving there L/S- good for you bro!!

This was a brilliant post- and all of the comments make some sense to me in one way or another...

Thanks for the kind words Saint.It definitely feels good to be appreciated... but, truth is... bloggers are the key ingredient, which make a blog interesting.You folks deserve the credit.I'm just a facilitator.Without bloggers... you have no blog... it's an interactive experience.Collectively... it's a very knowledgable group who comes through here... very knowledgable.

As I always say... "it all happens in the comments section"... and that's still where I enjoy blogging most.

After further thought... I don't think we can even isolate Crowe... as an exception to Manson's mindset of keeping (his own) hands clean.

I'm pretty sure... the (original) plan, was for TJ to shoot Crowe.Manson had wedged a pistol in the back of his pants... and TJ was supposed to pull the pistol (at the right moment), and shoot Crowe.No?Things got botched... and ultimately TJ never pulled the gun... and Manson shot Crowe by default.But... all things being equal... Manson had it planned (once again), that someone else would "pull the trigger" (literally in this instance).

Bob said:>>>>"My simplistic answer: SEX DRUGS & ROCKNROLL.Charlie is so similiar to many many cult leaders. He gains control over vulnerable people for purposes of sex which he basically admits. Often these cult scenarios end in murder and so did this one".<<<<

its too bad all this stuff happened so many years ago,too many dead witnesses,the passage of leaving peoples memories unreliableat best,quotes of the principles having 40 plus years to be twisted this way and that. hell 98% of the places of interest are gone as well. i wonder how this story would have played out in the internet age. would it be the page one story that it was in 69? would anyone even care?i guess alot of it is time specific with the hippies and all. i wonder if a jury today would buy the whole murders to start a race war concept? katie-casey anthonys parents on dr phil monday l/s- probably going to skip the bergeron thing today as much as i'd like to i can't justify spending 30 bucks to stand in line to shake a guys hand and get an autograph! missed the cup in providence the other day but it looked like a bit of a madhouse,the nhl should let chara bring it to my house so i can visit with lord stanley in peace.

After a little more rational thought, I just want to add something...I often post later in the evening in wind down mode, and then read it again the next day and think well, that was really dumb. LOL!

Anyway, want to add that I don't want to disregard the filth that was on his hands. Like we've always said...he may not have killed anyone, may have been too stupid to know he was guilty of murder, may have figured his hands were clean, but there was plenty of filth there... a stealing, drug dealing abuser, rapist, sex offender and child molestor...immorality in every aspect of his miserable life...

back then it seemed like Matt Pritash AC Marliese and myslef with an occasional visit from Brain Davis were the only ones posting- but it was always civil and we had great conversations about the case- there was never any insulting or screaming..it was my favortite time blogging and it was what got me hooked...

This site is becoming like that , and it is a good thing in my opinion....<<<<<<<<<

You are a great blogger, St. Circumstance, always so generous. Love the positive energy.

Leary, I think you really should post here at Lynyrd's site. Lynyrd is a awesome blog administrator. He adds great new topics often. Your free to add topics too.

Katie, is great when you enter a post. She will give you great well thought out opinions on your post.

Marliese, Well she is just the best blogger you could ever hope for. She see's the big picture & is very articulate. She is also knowledgeable about the area and gives great info about it as well as insights to the crime. She has also been really nice to me in comments so I dig her like I dig Katie.

St C. : Well he is the man. Think back to your first post with St. & now I think you can see the two you agree way more than not with each other. St has great ideas & his expressions of his theories.

Lynyrd, Also has bloggers like Kimchi, Tom G , Mary,mattprokes & Lynn who all have great input some of it local CA information but always good and informative.

I've been very impressed with many of your posts as well.You're an intelligent guy... there's no doubt.

I feel badly about some of the "skirmishes" we had in the past.The night I mentioned your cancer at Liz's place... I actually went back and apologized afterwards.My apology was deleted, but... I did post it.At any rate... I took things a bit too far that particular night, and I apologize.

First of all, before I forget, the Anthonys' interview on Dr. Phil will be on Tuesday or Wednesday. I believe it's Tuesday. I got on Dr. Phil's website and it says Wednesday, but I looked at my guide and it says Tuesday.

Sooo....if anyone is interested in that...please take note.

>>>Matt said: i wonder how this story would have played out in the internet age.would it be the page one story that it was in 69?would anyone even care?i guess alot of it is time specific with the hippies and all.>>>

Good question Matt. I really don't think it would be different today. I do think that if we got up tomorrow and read that any movie star's home was invaded and everyone ripped to smithereens with a Bowie knife, that it would still be big news. The only difference is...I don't think it would be hippies that did it.

MattP said:>>>>"l/s- probably going to skip the bergeron thing today as much as i'd like to i can't justify spending 30 bucks to stand in line to shake a guys hand and get an autograph!missed the cup in providence the other day but it looked like a bit of a madhouse,the nhl should let chara bring it to my house so i can visit with lord stanley in peace".<<<<

Yeah Matt... I hear ya.My "crowded madhouse" days are basically over as well. LOLI think that comes with the wisdom of aging.I watched the series on TV, in the comfort of my own home... that was more than satisfying for me.I'm really looking forward to the next season...

Manson made sure he "didn't get his hands dirty" on ALMOST every murder. I don't think he cared about how dirty his hands were when he stabbed Shorty. But, then again, did he even think Shorty would be found??

I do believe he's the one who tied the LaBianca's up (was Rosemary even tied up?). Either that, or he told Tex to do it. Either way, he's involved.

Shooting Bernard wasn't his plan. His plan was for TJ to do it. Unfortunately for him, that plan didn't work. Although Bernard didn't die.

Did he think he had been clever enough to not be convicted in the murders because of his "clean hands". Possibly. Or was he just creating a smokescreen and, as Lurch suggested, just trying to make a name for himself any way he could. Surely he would have known that he was playing into Bugliosi's hands by getting his "children" to act so bizarrely.

Or was it just like Lynyrd suggested....Bugliosi knew that Charlie would convict himself if he was allowed to. And he did.

Did he want to go back to prison? I don't know...but I feel very strongly that he doesn't want to get out. He doesn't even attend his parole hearings anymore, and when he did, he just made a mockery of it and a fool of himself. This is not indicative of someone who desperately wants out.

Lynn asked:>>>>"L/S What type of band and what instrument do you play?"<<<<

I play guitar.I'm just getting back into it... following a long, much-needed break.I'm jamming with a laid-back cover band.The members are old friends.It's basically a "conglomeration" of folks I played with in the past...

We play a "smorgasboard" of (what I would call) "folk rock".Neil Young, Bob Dylan, CSN, Creedence, The Dead, Eagles... some Marley... even a little Johnny Cash.That kinda stuff...

So glad you stopped by. I ditto Lynyrd's sentiment about our past squabbles. I hope all is forgotten.

You are most welcome to post here any time you please. You have great incite, not unlike lots of other bloggers here, and it's most interesting to have a "meeting of the minds" when we put our heads together.

Synonyms instigate, provoke, goad, spur, arouse, exhort; fire; induce. Incite, rouse, provoke, inflame. Provoke implies a sense of challenge or irritation along with arousal and often suggests a resultant anger or violence: provoked by scathing references to his accomplishments; to provoke a wave of resentment. Inflame, with its root sense to set afire, implies a resultant intensity and passion: to inflame a mob by fiery speeches; He was inflamed to rage by constant frustration.

>>>Lynn said: Thinking of HS and Bug. Bug was also a salesman selling a theory....a good salesperson listens and educates. A race war theory was not out of the question- we had so much racial tension that it was something the jury could understand and see as a possible motive.>>>

You're right Lynn. There was a lot of racial tension back then. Although a race war like Charlie described was quite inconceivable, but...a race war. The idea wasn't that far gone. It would be easy to convince his followers that there was an impending "race war" with the news on all the time about the riots, especially in 1968. That's probably what gave him the idea.

Good job Lynn!!!

That's what I love about blogging. Sometimes the simplest thing you overlooked is brought out by a smart blogger, and re-invented. :)

Put yourself back in 1970. Everything is all wel thought out now but back then Manson was Hitler X Ten.

The bifg mistake was the reversal of the MANSON fAMILY death penalties. This was reversed because a conservative Nixon condemned a Liberal manson. The revolutionary 60's were a time of unbridaled liberal supremecy.

IMO we lost the cold war when Manson and Family had their executions reversed by Liberal judges.

I'm not sure why California decided to do away with the death penalty back in the 70's, and I've always thought that was a shame that these people weren't put to death, but if you think about it, that would have been too easy for them.

They've spent their entire adult years in prison. All except Manson have begged and pleaded to get out, feigned being "born again", insisting that they've changed and are rehabilitated, only to be denied year after year. I think that is a more fitting punishment for their crimes.

ah, how I do love the "all good" approach. and being forgiven, for I too have learned that contentious and cantankerous are not how I want to be. thanks Katie and L/S. I have never stopped reading your stuff as you guys are not just among the most informed Manson bloggers but clearly the most entertaining. All good it is, you bet Saint.

yeah Katie, that is one of my major curiousities as well. You remember the mafia don, Vinnie the Chin, who walked around Greenwich Village in his bathrobe muttering to himself and as such convinced the Feds he was crazy for years.You gotta wonder if Steve as some sort of idiot savant and played the crazy card perfectly. Or maybe he just had one of those brains who couldn't withstand the chemical alteration and abuse and he really was a "scramblehead" who became 'normal' after getting off the drugs.Grogan and Mary Brunner are my two top choices if I could have anyone from the gang interviewed or, better yet, put on the witness stand again. It would be fascinating to see how or if the years have changed them.

I think the contrast was very great between what he had been and what he became in prison. His attitude was humble and he was very, very remorseful...at least in the parole hearing i read a long time ago at Bret's site, can't remember the details, but do recall thinking he appeared very ashamed. He definitely appeared to understand that he had willingly participated and was horrified at his own behavior. While the girls...especially SA and Horseface continually blame others and minimize their acts, and Davis acts like he's at a loss for words...totally clueless in front of a parole board. But maybe he's better about that now since he was recently successful...until it was overturned.

Having said that though, i don't think he did enough time. I've always strongly believed Shorty Shea's killers should be doing life...

Revealing where Shorty's body was buried helped i guess, i've never understood why, but probably because the remains revealed that Shorty hadn't been decapitated or cut up in pieces...supporting that Grogan was being truthful to the parole board.

I agree with you Marliese - Grogan appeared to be remorseful while LVH, SA, and Tex remain victims. But Patricia seems to be very remorseful - very humble and is willing to sit the rest of her life in prison because she realizes that society cannot forgive her since she cannot forgive herself.

Why do you think she has not had the same opportunity as Grogan? Was it because she did not have any further information (either real or pretend) to share with authorities like he did? Or was it because she was involved the the two most high profile cases in the Manson Family? Either way, should it matter, especially since the Grogan information turned out to be make believe?

I am not saying I think she is being treated unfairly...but for some reason HE received preferential treatment...IMO

Hi Leary. Thanks! Glad to have you as part of the team. We'd love to have you submit your ideas for a thread if you want to as well.

>>>Leary said: Grogan and Mary Brunner are my two top choices if I could have anyone from the gang interviewed or, better yet, put on the witness stand again. It would be fascinating to see how or if the years have changed them.>>>

I don't know anything about those two today, but as far as Mary goes, I wouldn't trust her any further than I could throw her.

I guess she was never charged in the Hinman murder because she decided to "sing", but she changed her testimony more than she changed her underwear. How she went from a librarian to a cold hearted liar, I guess, is a testament to Manson's brainwashing abilities.

It would be interesting to see what Grogan had to say these days, although I can't imagine that he would. He's probably much better off if he's incognito.

I wonder just how much Steve knew about the murders, other than Shea's.

I did read the transcript of that parole hearing, and yes Grogan seemed very anxious to help sort out the details of the murder. He readily admitted to his part in the killing.

And his drug-addled brain probably did heal up, along with his disassociation with murderers, which probably made him appear to be sane.

But that being said, I agree Marliese, he should still be in prison with the rest of them. He also served time in a mental hospital, I believe, for exposing himself to children. Not a good member of society to be running around!

Mary, I think that Pat is the most remorseful of all of them. I think she's just resigned herself to stay put until the end.

And Bruce Davis??? That guy needs to rot in prison. There are probably several other murders that he was involved in that he was never prosecuted for. He was and still is a murderer, a phony and a liar.

I saw one of his last parole hearings, and he was arrogant and cocky. He was downplaying his part in Shorty's murder. By the time he got to what he did, it only amounted to poking Shorty in the shoulder a few times at Charlie's insistence.

According to Steve, Bruce was happily chopping away on Shorty. And in this instance, I tend to believe Steve.

Why is it that people hate Mr. Bugliosi? He did what he had to do to get those f*cking animals off the street. You people are so "obsessed" with everything Manson, that you don't realize how mean that little turd is, and the fact that there is a probably a very good chance that he DID kill someone. Why is it so hard to believe that Bugliosi didn't have any evidence? What about their confessions? What about the fact that there was more than one person who heard him bragging about the crimes? Bugliosi isn't the criminal here. Another thing. Manson gave orders on everything, including telling those flea bags how to even wipe their asses HIS WAY probably, so what makes you think that they just hopped in the car one night, and went ON THEIR OWN to go kill people without him having any say so. Ignore the fact that he controlled them like robots.

Thanks for the interesting post. There is a blogger ( scramblehead) over at the Col's site that has some very strong opinions on Bug.He is tough to argue with but if your up to the challenge it could be interesting. Good luck.

Mary said >>>>>>>I agree with you Marliese - Grogan appeared to be remorseful while LVH, SA, and Tex remain victims. But Patricia seems to be very remorseful - very humble and is willing to sit the rest of her life in prison because she realizes that society cannot forgive her since she cannot forgive herself.>>>>>>>>

I think she's remorseful and humble though i also find there's something detached, or not completely connected to the enormity of her crimes... but after decades of therapy and treatment, maybe that's a coping mechanism. I don't know how that works.

Seriously, how do you live with opening your eyes in the morning to the reality of life in prison for multiple first degree murder convictions...having stabbed and hacked people to death, writing all over walls in the blood of the victims, twanging a carving fork in the throat of a victim, fighting with and stabbing at a screaming, bound, terrified woman with a pillow case over her head, chasing down and slicing up a woman's face in a stabbing frenzy until she said 'i give up, i'm already dead'...... and her answer to the parole board that she'd hurt herself the most...that's a tough one to get past...and yet everything you read about her is that she's kind, gentle, compassionate, not a ding anywhere in her 40 year prison history...but i can sleep at night believing her crimes have earned her life in prison. Sad but true.

Mary said >>>>>Why do you think she has not had the same opportunity as Grogan? Was it because she did not have any further information (either real or pretend) to share with authorities like he did? Or was it because she was involved the the two most high profile cases in the Manson Family? Either way, should it matter, especially since the Grogan information turned out to be make believe>>>>>>>>>>>

How many first degree murders was Pat convicted of...was it seven? I don't know. There is no way Grogan would have been released if he had been convicted in the Cielo murders...if he had overpowered and stabbed Abigail to death? No way. Or been involved in the killing of Leno and Rosemary. (though I don't know why he wasn't charged since he was in the car at Waverly that night, while Sadie was...but i think i read somewhere that's connected to Sadie's failed plea agreement not to seek the death penalty against her...later tonight i'll find where i read that.)

I've never understood why revealing where Shorty's remains were buried should have had any influence on parole for Grogan, but it did....possibly because after several years in prison he wanted to correct what they'd all always claimed, that Shorty's head was cut off and his body cut up in pieces, and he had to prove it...he wanted the record to show he hadn't cut off Shorty's head. So fine, prove it, but i don't see why that should've influenced letting him out. He still plunged a knife into the man's heart and killed him.

Mary said >>>>>am not saying I think she is being treated unfairly...but for some reason HE received preferential treatment...IMO<<<<<<

Seems so, doesn't it...he got lucky, no doubt about it. It all lined up for him, and he got out...

Didn't Steve Grogan get life in prison while the rest got the death penalty. Something about the judge thought he was too retarded or too stupid to kill. Maybe that's why he got out and the others didn't.

I don't think that Steve is retarded or stupid. I think he might have appeared that way due to excessive drug use..not sure.

>>>Marliese said: I think she's (Pat) remorseful and humble though i also find there's something detached, or not completely connected to the enormity of her crimes... but after decades of therapy and treatment, maybe that's a coping mechanism. I don't know how that works.>>>

Marliese good point. Pat does seem very harmless, her prison record is clean, she's done what she can to help others in her prison activities.

But at her last parole hearing, she did seem angry that she couldn't get others to believe that she was sorry. She cried and said "I can't do anything else but kill myself."

I have no idea how it feels to be in prison for life. To think about what you did every day, to wish you'd never gone there, but it's got to take a toll on your brain at some point.

I do think that Pat is remorseful, and I really don't think she would be a threat if she got out...but maybe it's for the best that she just stay there until she dies.

What she did is a WHOLE lot more than what Bobby, Sadie, Leslie or Clem did. She was very instrumental in the killings, 2nd only to Tex Watson.

I believe it was Circumstance who talked about the difference between shooting and stabbing.

He's very right. Shooting is very impersonal. You can stand several yards away from someone and pull a trigger to kill, but with stabbing, you have to be right next to someone.

You hear their screams of fear and agony, and get their blood all over you.

Pat took a carving fork and stabbed Rosemary and Leno several times all the way up to the tines, in other words, it penetrated as deep as it would go. This was after they were dead. That's called desecration of a body.

Then she left it in Leno's stomach and thought it was funny because it wobbled.

Afterwards they gleefully raided the fridge.

I'll tell you, for all those people who claim these are copy cat crimes, if that was the intent, it was certainly botched up. Every crime scene was different. Nothing copy cat about it.

I think Grogan's age, 17 at the time of Shorty's murder, may have been a factor in his early release.

California was soft on juvinile offenders back then.Some of you may recall the crimes/case of Marlene Olive and Chuck Riley.Convicted of murdering her parents and burning their bodies in Marin County California.Chuck 19 was sentenced to death, Marlene 16 was sentenced as a juvinile and was realeased upon her 21st birthday.

sbuch113 said...>>>>>I think Grogan's age, 17 at the time of Shorty's murder, may have been a factor in his early release.

California was soft on juvinile offenders back then.<<<<<<

Maybe so, and I understand what you mean about considering his age, even though he wasn't tried as a juvenile. He was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in adult court...commuted to life by the judge that said he was too stupid and hopped up on drugs to come up with the idea on his own...

I think he was paroled because the parole board believed he was sincerely remorseful and completely rehabilitated and, unlike the women today, had strong support for parole from the prosecutor at his trial...Burton Katz...his input was no doubt very influential...something the women have never had from Steven Kay and Patrick Sequera etc. Also, Grogan was paroled before victims' rights and famly members of the victims giving statements at parole hearings.

Burton Katz...he's the prosecutor that went on to become the judge presiding in the murder trial of Dominique Dunne's killer...it was his terrible decision to not allow evidence regarding the killer's very violent past with other women that cleared the way for Dominique's killer to be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. He served a pathetic six years for repeatedly stalking, beating, chasing down, and finally strangling Dominique as she tried desperately to get away from him.

Marliese - yes, I completely agree with you AGAIN about Pat. Although I feel she is remorseful - does she deserve to get out...NO. She was brutal and unyielding in her attacks and actions those nights. But I think she is the only one I can look at and say...wow, I kinda feel sorry for the person she is NOW. I am not as educated on the parole hearings as most of the other commenters - so I have to take your word on your assessment as detached.

As far as Bobby goes - he also held someone captive and tortured them for days before finally killing him. There has got to be something missing in ones soul to do that - something that is not easily found and/or replaced. These kinds of people are dangerous - and if something is missing in their conscious and soul then they remain dangerous. And I definitely put Pat in the same category.

It is not as if Pat, Grogan, Bobby, and the rest of these people did something in the heat of passion and made a mistake. These people took the time to torture their victims and desecrate their bodies after death. They do not deserve a second chance because there was much thought, action, and attitude put into their crimes.

Maybe I sympathize more with Pat because she seems to recognize that she should not get out and the others feel they are being wronged for still paying for their heinous crimes. But with your restatement of her participation in the crimes...it sure made me flinch and rethink my sympathy. I guess that is what the parole board feels every time they meet with one of these participants. Is there anything that they can do in prison and in life to rehabilitate themselves and the images of their crimes among society?

Correct me if I am wrong because I may be making this up out of thin air, but isn't the way the Grogan parole came about because whatever surviving family members Shorty Shea had contacted the authorities and asked that whatever could be done to finally find his body so he could be laid to rest properly be attempted? That in essence an offer was made to Grogan that if he cooperated he would be allowed to be paroled in exchange?

September 12, 2011The Misuse of Life Without ParoleThe Supreme Court ruled last year that it is cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile to life without parole when the crime is short of homicide. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that life without parole shares “some characteristics with death sentences that are shared by no other sentences” in altering “the offender’s life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable.”

The sentence is no less severe when applied to adults. Yet life without parole, which exists in all states (Alaska’s version is a 99-year sentence), is routinely used, including in cases where the death penalty is not in play and where even an ordinary life sentence might be too harsh.

From 1992 to 2008, the number in prison for life without parole tripled from 12,453 to 41,095, even though violent crime declined sharply all over the country during that period. That increase is also much greater than the percentage rise in offenders serving life sentences.

The American Law Institute, a group composed of judges, lawyers and legal scholars, has wisely called for restricting the use of the penalty to cases “when this sanction is the sole alternative to a death sentence.”

In capital cases, life without parole is a sound option. Public support for the death penalty, a barbarity that should be abolished in this country, plummets when life without parole is an alternative. In many states, juries are instructed that it is an option. But the use of the sentence has gone far beyond death penalty cases, even as violent crime rates have declined.

In the last decade in Georgia, one of the few states with good data on the sentence, about 60 percent of offenders sentenced to life without parole were convicted of murder. The other 40 percent were convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, sex crimes, drug crimes and other crimes including shoplifting. Nationwide, the racial disparity in the penalty is stark. Blacks make up 56.4 percent of those serving life without parole, though they are 37.5 percent of prisoners in all state prisons.

The overuse of the sentence reflects this excessively punitive era. But as the institute’s report explains, an “ordinary” life sentence is “a punishment of tremendous magnitude” whose “true gravity should not be undervalued.” In the past 20 years, the average life term served has grown from 21 years to 29 years before parole.

Interestingly, even the institute’s approach to sentencing reflects the times. In 1962, when it last revised its Model Penal Code on sentencing, which is a blueprint for states to follow in shaping their laws, the group called for prisoners sentenced to life to be considered for parole after 1 to 10 years. Now the group calls for them to be reviewed by a judge within 15 years, with the expectation that many will “never regain their freedom.”

Still, the group’s view about the proper relationship between crime and punishment is dispassionate and correct. A fair-minded society should revisit life sentences and decide whether an offender deserves to remain in prison or be released on parole. And a fair-minded society should not sentence anyone to life without parole except as an alternative to the death penalty.

>>>Starship said: Reminds me of the old joke: I was a boy scout for a while but I got kicked out for eating a brownie...>>>

HA HA HA!!

Hi Starship! If memory serves, I seem to remember the same thing now, that Shea's family wanted closure about his death and did contact authorities to "make a deal" with one of the killers to find his body. In fact, I THINK that Grogan said to someone that Bruce is the one who told him to take authorities to find Shea's body. And due to the time factor involved and the natural erosion of the soil, Grogan had a hard time even finding it

katie8753 said...>>>>Marliese, thanks for the info on Burton Katz. I didn't know all that. It's sad about Dominique Dunne's killer. Slap on the wrist.<<<<<

Hi Katie, very sad, isn't it? It was listening to her father's comments and reading his articles on the Menendez brothers during their trial that got me interested in Dominique's life and killing...and you know, it gets even worse...her killer served only two and a half years of that pathetic sentence...altogether maybe three and a half years counting the time in jail before and during the trial.

Mary said...>>>>>Marliese - yes, I completely agree with you AGAIN about Pat. Although I feel she is remorseful - does she deserve to get out...NO. She was brutal and unyielding in her attacks and actions those nights. But I think she is the only one I can look at and say...wow, I kinda feel sorry for the person she is NOW. I am not as educated on the parole hearings as most of the other commenters - so I have to take your word on your assessment as detached. <<<<<<

Hi Mary, I know...I feel the same about her...the person she is NOW.

Her last parole hearing was just terrible...she seemed very depressed. And she's aging, i guess the women aren't allowed the slightest bit of skincare or make up anymore, and she slumps, doesn't carry herself well, has poorly fitting dentures, her voice...always so soft, was flat and sad. I've read that in person, she has a sweet personality and a twinkle in her eye...but we never see that side revisiting her devastating crimes in parole hearings...

With Susan's death, she became the longest serving female prisoner in California, and is considered supportive and compassionate towards the women she works with in prison. I've also read that years ago she hoped very much for parole for LVH, believing that might one day open the door a bit for her as well.

After all these years, I hope she's content and remains productive in her daily life situation in prison...

>>>>"In the last decade in Georgia, one of the few states with good data on the sentence, about 60 percent of offenders sentenced to life without parole were convicted of murder. The other 40 percent were convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, sex crimes, drug crimes and other crimes including shoplifting".<<<<

Huh...

Life without the possibility of parole sounds a bit severe for armed robbery, drug crimes and shoplifting.

Those guys must not have had Harold True's lawyer.: )

(whom, according to Harold)... told them to "shove it up their ass". LOLOL

Yeah St., it's not so funny anymore for the girls/women who used to be "protected by the veil of Charlie", or so they thought.

If you look at Pat's 1993 parole hearing, she's completely unemotional and flat, describing what she did as nonchalantly as if she was going shopping for shoes. Either she didn't think it was so horrible, or she's just tired of talking about it. Don't know.

katie8753 said...>>>>Yeah St., it's not so funny anymore for the girls/women who used to be "protected by the veil of Charlie", or so they thought.<<<<<

It sure isn't funny anymore.

I read once that she kept his photo up on the wall of her cell for a couple of years when she was housed in the death row unit built just for the 'manson girls' at the women's prison. Tptb didn't know what to do with them, so they built a secure little building just for them...

And by all accounts the warden in place at the prison when they were initially incarcerated was a saint, and helped the girls enormously...in their return to reality.

Katie said>>>>If you look at Pat's 1993 parole hearing, she's completely unemotional and flat, describing what she did as nonchalantly as if she was going shopping for shoes. Either she didn't think it was so horrible, or she's just tired of talking about it. Don't know.>>>>>

Yes, always very flat in parole hearings. Is the '93 hearing the one where she was asked if she carved up Leno with WAR and said 'i have no memory of that' ...like that was news to her...no clue.

>>>Marliese said: Yes, always very flat in parole hearings. Is the '93 hearing the one where she was asked if she carved up Leno with WAR and said 'i have no memory of that' ...like that was news to her...no clue.>>>

You know I mentioned that in her last parole hearing, she said something like "I can't take any of it back...all I can do is kill myself." (Can't find that hearing now so I'm repeating from memory).

The very fact that she brought up the word "kill" is disturbing, even if she's talking about killing herself. She's still talking about killing.

Here is something to reflect upon:"On the same day as the Manson gang was sentence to death April 19 1971, Lieutenant William L. Calley was sentenced to life for killing twenty-two Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai massacre. His sentence was later commuted. His defence was that he was just obeying orders."

Katie 8753About the dates: Yes, I think you maybe right on that.BobbyLieutenant William L. Calley defence was that he was just obeying orders."Ackording to Vincent Bug and many others the perpetrators took orders direct from Manson,so they were just obeying orders, just like Calley. I don´t know what Calley is doing today but I guess he is living a rather normal life. Sometimes the law is a funny thing.

Manson, on the other hand, had nothing to do with the military, never served his country in any capacity whatsoever, never tried to, and was always short of the law.

Let's look at this thread as it should be looked at.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Charles Manson, upon release from prison in 1967, went to the Haight to play his guitar. He soon learned that a lot of "hippies" liked to hang out and "veg" to his stupid music.

He soon learned that he could gather a "gaggle" of unwanted girls...i.e., girls who were ugly, were unhappy, were kicked out of their parents' houses, were wayward..were looking for trouble, were just bored shitless.

He concocted this "family" with this gaggle of strays and started his "family". He used these whores (he was a pimp) to get his way with men. And the men were more than stupid, drooling over these dirty ugly women because they were too lazy to get jobs and get a woman who was educated and had a job.

He proceeded to orchestrate their drug habits, orgies, eating habits, shit habits, bathing habits, and was soon in command of their every function. He was in charge if they farted.

Katie8753That commanding officer may or may not be right, but you are to do what he/she says. No Katie you are wrong. That´s what the Nazis try to get away with after the 2 world war;"we only obeyed orders." But ackording to the Nürnberg-laws that is not a valid reason than it comes to killing civilians. Going back to the base source....Charles Manson. THE TRUTH .That´s a very good idea. For your help here is a little poem by Charlie. -Coming into my heart againI am the darkness standing on the moonLove and life I'm just a part of themSoul soldiers never lose 'cause it's all withinThe wind wins again...and againThe eyes are the windows of my soulI knowI knowI'll never start again...Because I'll never end-

katie8753 said...>>>>>>Manson, on the other hand, had nothing to do with the military, never served his country in any capacity whatsoever, never tried to, and was always short of the law.

Let's look at this thread as it should be looked at.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Charles Manson, upon release from prison in 1967, went to the Haight to play his guitar. He soon learned that a lot of "hippies" liked to hang out and "veg" to his stupid music.

He soon learned that he could gather a "gaggle" of unwanted girls...i.e., girls who were ugly, were unhappy, were kicked out of their parents' houses, were wayward..were looking for trouble, were just bored shitless.

He concocted this "family" with this gaggle of strays and started his "family". He used these whores (he was a pimp) to get his way with men. And the men were more than stupid, drooling over these dirty ugly women because they were too lazy to get jobs and get a woman who was educated and had a job.

He proceeded to orchestrate their drug habits, orgies, eating habits, shit habits, bathing habits, and was soon in command of their every function. He was in charge if they farted.

-Coming into my heart againI am the darkness standing on the moonLove and life I'm just a part of themSoul soldiers never lose 'cause it's all withinThe wind wins again...and againThe eyes are the windows of my soulI knowI knowI'll never start again...Because I'll never end-

That is a poem? For me, as with most all of what CM writes or has written, it is meaningless drivel,.

No imagery, no metaphor, no symbolism, no cadence, no metre, no assonance, no alliteration, no sense, no way ...

You can jumble words together to effect - Dylan can do this brilliantly - but CM can't. ''Soul soldiers never lose 'cause it's all within'. WTF? The eyes are the windows of my soul' - shades of Elizabeth 1 of England here, but so trite, so cliched.

Sorry, but this just isn't a poem, and CM is no poet. Just another thing he was no good at, and to think otherwise is simply delusional.

I am probably one of about 10 people who read the Long Strange journey of LVH...

it was written Pro- LULU

but if it is true...<<<<<<

Hi St C, would you recommend this book? Our local library doesn't have it, can't get it, and i don't know...is it worth the 25.00 for a new one through Amazon? I really dislike ordering used books from Amz or Ebay...have had a few bad experiences...stinky stained books arriving that were described as 'like new.' LOL!

poetry is like music. its beauty or lack thereof is in the eye of the beholder. i've seen all kinds of crap called poetry that i would'nt wipe my ass with but if someone else likes it then they like it. it doesnt really matter what anyone else thinks.

poetry is like music.its beauty or lack thereof is in the eye of the beholder.i've seen all kinds of crap called poetry that i would'nt wipe my ass with but if someone else likes it then they like it.it doesnt really matter what anyone else thinks.

Well, yes, and no. You can also say (like Shakespeare's Juliet) that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' - to mix tritenesses even further, the devil can always cite scripture for his purpose. But enough of cheap cliches.

Matt, you are right that these are value judgments. But nobody who heard me sing or viewed my attempts at drawing would ever credit me with being a singer or an artist - I am devoid of talent in these fields (I am more of a words sort of person, I guess) .

There is a branch of learning (and philosophy) known as aesthetics, which can be seen loosely as "a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, esp. in art" (definition courtesy of my MBP's built-in dictionary). It is this faculty that critics draw on when reviewing film, stage shows and ballet; opera, jazz and rock music; novels and poetry; painting and sculpture; etc. And it is this faculty I am drawing on when I react to Manson's writing.

It is an interesting debate, that all art is only art if someone likes it. I would argue that there IS consensus in the western world that enables us to value works of art (paintings, poetry, music, dance and song, etc.) and that this arises by appealing to a collective appreciation of what constitutes art. This allows us to distinguish naif work, for instance, like Gauguin and Modigliani, from the work of primates and school children, even when their work contains many similarities of style and execution. [This with a loose 'Western' tradition: other parts of the world, such as the Middle East, India or the Orient operate within different aesthetic frameworks].

As for it doesnt really matter what anyone else thinks, that is for many artists probably true, and I would imagine particularly the case with CM. But somewhere in the appreciation of art - and the acknowledgment of a work as art - must surely be recognition of skill, craftsmanship, vision, purpose, dexterity, creativity, imagination, subtlety, sensitivity, etc.?

None of this really matters, and thanks, Matt, for your comments. It's nice not to be attacked for once (but perhaps that is yet to come).

no attacks coming your way from me frank! but as bad as your singing voice may be if one person likes it who am i to say they're wrong. its only my opinion and it should'nt make someone else change theirs. i'll agree that none of this really matters...just fun to think about in a chicken or the egg,one hand clapping,tree falls in the forest kind of way. i will say this though,just because everyone likes something doesnt mean it has artistic merit. case in point:kokomo! just kidding katie i could'nt resist.

FRIENDS

"Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls." -- Tom G

"The simple and undeniable truth, is that Charlie and the gang were/are the biggest idiots, morons and imbeciles on the planet." -- Leary7

"Them fucking fruitcakes could not pour piss out of a boot, with the bottom written on it."--Harold True